never be any such consensus in this congress. every single republican in that room is there for one reason defend the president, period. every democrat is trying to elicit damaging testimony about the president, period. for something that this president has described as perfect, the ability to understand what was up with ukraine and this president has proven to be anything but, and now we know why. i did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then-national security adviser john bolton to members of his nsc staff regarding the discussion of investigations. ambassador bolton recommended that i send a first-person cable to secretary pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. i wrote and transmitted such a cable on august 29th, describing the folly i saw in withholding military aid to ukraine.
even though you know they have no firsthand information, but you don t call for the people at the top of the food chain. you want firsthand info, but you don t want to question bolton. you don t want pompeo. you don t want mulvaney. bolton called it a drug deal. that s not firsthand information. you say nothing. whose lawyer said he had personal knowledge about many relevant meetings and conversations? bolton s lawyer did. you don t want the secretary of state mike pompeo? you don t want the energy secretary rick perry, the chief of staff mick mulvaney, and of course the man in the middle, the man everybody talks about but you won t talk to, rudy giuliani. do you understand the hypocrisy at play here? all of them are defying subpoenas for either documents or testimony at the white house s direction. why? why would this president keep his inner circle from testifying robustly in his defense?
patriotic no matter what the republicans say, they re not calling the shots. they re there to implement decisions made by people who won t make the same choice that they did, to ignore the president telling them not to speak and do their duty. if everything is so perfect, then why hide the key players? if the republicans are so desperate for firsthand knowledge, so frustrated that people can t give them the straight truth, then why don t they ask for the main players? you re so desperate that you would like to expose the whistle-blower, someone whose identity is protected by law even though you know they have no firsthand information, but you don t call for the people at the top of the food chain. you want firsthand info, but you don t want to question bolton. you don t want pompeo. you don t want mulvaney. bolton called it a drug deal. that s not firsthand information. you say nothing. whose lawyer said he has personal knowledge about many
perfect, the ability to understand what was up with ukraine and this president has proven to be anything but, and now we know why. i did not know about the strong concerns expressed by then-national security adviser john bolton to members of his nsc staff regarding the discussion of investigations. ambassador bolton recommended that i send a first-person cable to secretary pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. i wrote and transmitted such a cable on august 29th, describing the folly i saw in withholding military aid to ukraine. ambassador sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of vice president joe biden s son, isn t that correct, sir? that is correct. and he stated that he was asking these requests in coordination with chief of staff white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, correct, sir? that is what i heard him say. everybody heard it, thought it, was told it because they all work for somebody else. you know, and while all these men and women ar